when republicans go to far

[Gunslinger]

I saw this on foxnews.com today and have to say I couldnt disagree with these two idiots more.  I hope these guys don't get too much clout within the party because I really think this would ruin entertainment as we know it.

 
Indecent Proposal: Expanding FCC Speech Controls to Cable

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

By James L. Gattuso

Ten years ago, when the GOP (search) first took control of Congress, there was much excited talk about abolishing the FCC. Its days were numbered, many thought. Ten years later, those numbers look pretty large.

Rather than talk of shrinking the FCC (search), two key GOP leaders last week were talking about expanding it. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, told reporters he wanted to extend the agency’s control over “indecent” speech to cable and satellite television. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, his House counterpart, said he also might support the idea.

Lawmakers are responding to a genuine concern, shared by many Americans, that television and radio programming is becoming more offensive. However, the proposed solution, increased government restrictions on speech, is fundamentally misguided. The idea of government bureaucrats deciding what can and cannot be heard is repugnant to American values.

Conservatives -- who have long been the targets of politically correct speech codes on college campuses and elsewhere -- should be particularly wary of such restrictions.

It is also naive to think that regulators can draw a neat line between what is appropriate and what is not -- as most recently shown by the reluctance of many PBS stations last month to air unexpurgated versions of a “Frontline” documentary on American troops in Iraq.

The FCC’s powers have so far been limited to broadcasters, who operate under FCC license. Stevens and Barton now want to eliminate that distinction, seeing it as a loophole for cable and satellite programming. Never mind that this programming largely comes over privately built facilities and does not enter anyone’s home unless requested (and paid for).

Worse, speech regulation is unlikely to stop with cable and satellite programming. What about video transmitted over the Internet? Isn’t that a “loophole” that the FCC needs to plug? Or Internet radio? Why not other pervasive media that might cause offense? If we’re plugging loopholes, what about the big one that lets newspapers and magazines print virtually anything they want? Shouldn’t a regulator be looking at them to make sure no one gets offended?

Even FCC chairman Michael Powell, who initiated the FCC’s drive against broadcast indecency, sees a problem here. “I think it’s a dangerous thing to start talking about extending government oversight of content to other media just to level the playing field,” he said earlier this year. Sadly, however, he’s leaving, and other regulators are not so averse to expanding their domain. For instance, current Commissioner Kevin Martin, widely touted as Powell’s replacement, has said that extending profanity restrictions is a “viable alternative” that should be considered.

Fortunately, even if the proposed expansion of controls passes Congress, it would have a hard time getting past the Supreme Court. It wouldn’t take an activist judge to see a clear conflict with the First Amendment here.

Rather than impose ever-stricter limits on media content, lawmakers concerned about the quality of programming should instead promote policies that would expand the choices available to consumers. Already, cable programmers such as the Family Channel and Disney Channel offer family-oriented television. Satellite radio operator Sirius recently announced it would offer several channels of children’s radio on its network.

By reducing governmental barriers to new outlets, policymakers could further increase the number of choices available. Such steps could include freeing up underused radio spectrum, reducing regulations that discourage investment in new telecommunications systems, and reducing taxes on providers.

Ultimately, the solution to offensive programming lies not with policymakers but with individual consumers and families. Parents and others unhappy with what they see on television have weapons more powerful than any congressman has. Like other businesses, broadcasters respond to their customers. Complaints to broadcasters and to the advertisers who support them can be effective.

But the most powerful weapons consumers wield are their own remote controls. The best regulation comes not from government but from individuals making choices for themselves. Rather than look to Washington for answers, we should look to our own thumbs.

James L. Gattuso is a research fellow in regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based public policy research institute.


 

 

[Sandman]

On the other hand, the FCC should have stopped this from ever growing as big as it is.

[JB88]

free speech.  free radio.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Sandman
On the other hand, the FCC should have stopped this from ever growing as big as it is.

Couldnt agree with you more (if in fact you are referring to the fact that IIRC 80% of all radio stations in the country are owned by the same company)

Media that is controled by one outlet whether it be the govt or a cingle corp. is not free speech

[Storm7]

I used to roll my eyes whenever something like this would come up because it would eventually lead to someone mentioning "Big Brother" and 1984. This time I can see the initial footsteps towards controlled media. It doesn't take much to get the ball rolling. Could they expand the ban on what is indecent to what is immoral and then to what is unhealthy for a society? In some cases, they (the government in general) already have. It is easier now to see that one day, with this kind of authority, the government might decide that a broadcast on a certain topic would be bad for the society to be exposed to.

[JB88]

i was flipping through AM channels in the car this afternoon.

it's been a while.  

strange air out there.

[DREDIOCK]

That is disgusting and what I consider "obscene"
See now this type of thing is exactly the reason why I will never align myself with either of the two parties.
The left leans too far left and the right leans too far right.

Now that its swinging too far to the right by default I'm gonna have to vote Dem next election unless Hillry runs in which case I'll either vote independant or will abstain out of disgust

[LePaul]

One Saturday eves, I work at Sears.  One of the guys I work with is a discjokey at the only locally owned & operated rock station (its the one Stephen King owns).  He pointed out that he is the only live dj on in the late nights he works.  ClearChannel bought up everything here.  Last he checked, he's the *only* live DJ in the state and he's thinking of checking further south into NH and VT.

And if you ever thought about being a DJ...he says he's making $7.55 an hour.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by LePaul
One Saturday eves, I work at Sears.  One of the guys I work with is a discjokey at the only locally owned & operated rock station (its the one Stephen King owns).  He pointed out that he is the only live dj on in the late nights he works.  ClearChannel bought up everything here.  Last he checked, he's the *only* live DJ in the state and he's thinking of checking further south into NH and VT.

And if you ever thought about being a DJ...he says he's making $7.55 an hour.

Yup they dont make squat unless they have a big name.

I did a radio show for a few weeks.  The "drive at 5" at the local rock station.  I went to work in the mornings and recorded a 5 hour show in an hour and made about $50 a week from it.

whats worse is when you have corporate radio telling you "what you can and cannot play"  it's all about money to them and that whole business is majorly screwed up


To think the Govt wants to get involved now in my HBO and comedy central just annoys the crap out of me.

[LePaul]

I think the Janet Jackson episode made a bad situation worse.

I also think people are going overboard on both sides.

I agree that a boob-show on the Super Bowl was in remarkably poor taste.  Whether you are pro or con on nudity, doing so during a family event like that is just foolish.

And I think they are right on when they go after a few of the foul-mouthed DJs and such.  But when TV stations are hesitant to play "Saving Private Ryan" and such, then the lines need to be re-drawn.

When the broadcasters show they can police themselves and spare the general public much of this *in your face* profanity, I dont think they'll have much to fear from Big Brother.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by LePaul
I think the Janet Jackson episode made a bad situation worse.

I also think people are going overboard on both sides.

I agree that a boob-show on the Super Bowl was in remarkably poor taste.  Whether you are pro or con on nudity, doing so during a family event like that is just foolish.

And I think they are right on when they go after a few of the foul-mouthed DJs and such.  But when TV stations are hesitant to play "Saving Private Ryan" and such, then the lines need to be re-drawn.

When the broadcasters show they can police themselves and spare the general public much of this *in your face* profanity, I dont think they'll have much to fear from Big Brother.

I think if it was Britney's boob no one would have thrown a stink about it.

But yea alot of the reaction has been definate overkill.

[Saurdaukar]

Ist not a curse having teh small Azn c4wk.  j00 can slip it in for teh buttsecks and she will not no teh difference.

[Tumor]

I have to agree that they (R's) are probably going to far.

  Then again, I don't really know the details.  I would say that there probably is a need for controls on what's freely boradcast.  There's always some person, or company or whatever that's out to push the limit, see how far they can go.  

  Perhaps if it were easier to control what's broadcast in our own home (or whatever you're children view/listen too), we wouldn't need some kind of  "Big Brother".  As things are now, and no thanks the that stupid stunt Jackson pulled (among others)... I say we do whatever it takes to keep the attention-potatos off the airwaves.  Technology will eventually even things out.

[Storm7]

I wouldn't totally blame it on the R's. Wasn't it Al Gore's wife that tried to restrict the sales of music albums?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Storm7
I wouldn't totally blame it on the R's. Wasn't it Al Gore's wife that tried to restrict the sales of music albums?

C'mon... let's all wax nostalgic about the PMRC.